Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 rw s. 34 – Murder – Previous animosity between the parties – On the fateful day, accused persons attacked the victim and two others with knives, resulting in victim’s death, and injuries to other two - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 rw s.34 and s. 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act – High Court while upholding the conviction, extended benefit of s. 428 CrPC – Interference with – Held: Not called for – On examination of entire evidence of all the witnesses with reference to medical and other evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt – All the accused committed the offence with a common intention and all participated in committing the crime – Role attributed to accused fully supported by the injured witnesses as well as the deposition of investigation officer – Testimony of the injured witness is natural and trustworthy – Contradictions sought to be projected in the deposition of injured witnesses are minor contradictions which cannot be the basis to discard their evidence – Omissions like non-seizing of motorcycle and gold chain of one of the victims, not a ground to discredit the testimony of key witnesses who were consistent, natural and trustworthy – Criminal trial – Evidence – Witnesses.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The view taken by the trial court in recording the conviction against the appellants, as confirmed by the High Court is upheld. Therefore, no interference is called for with the concurrent findings recorded against the appellants. It is also clear that there was a quarrel between the deceased about six months earlier to the incident and one accused regarding payment of rent of tractor. Further it is brought on record that there was animosity between them which is the motive for the crime. As such, the prosecution has established, beyond reasonable doubt, that all the accused have committed the offence with a common intention and participated in committing the crime. The trial court as well as the High Court has not committed any error in law or on facts, as such, the order is upheld. [Para 21][256-C-E] The testimony of PWs-8 and 19 who were with the deceased on the day of occurrence and who were travelling on the same motorcycle, is quite natural and trustworthy. Though it was submitted that as the incident happened in the month of November it was not possible to identify the assailants in the darkness, at the same time it is clear from the evidence on record that the headlight of the vehicle was ‘on’ and it is evident from the record and panchnama of the place of occurrence that there was a light which was there on the Vadi. Furthermore, the accused as well as the witnesses are of the same village, which appears to be a small village and usually the persons residing in the village meet frequently, there would not be any difficulty in identifying the persons. Therefore, as far as the identification of the accused is concerned, the same is well supported by the evidence on record. The prosecution also examined PW-1 who had deposed that he was on duty in the Hospital on 10.11.2006. On that day in the night, injured RM was brought to him by his nephew H, for treatment with the complaint and stated that VR attacked him and gave knife blow. The witness doctor issued injury certificate. PW-2, is the doctor who performed postmortem of the deceased. [Para 17][249-C-F]
The submission that there was no head injury, as deposed by PWs-18 and 19 on the deceased and also as per the postmortem report, as such the deposition of PWs- 18 and 19 is to be discarded, cannot be accepted for the reason that the postmortem report indicates injury on the lower back side of the head. An attempt was made to assault the deceased with an axe. It cannot be expected that it has to be hit on the centre of the head. It has fallen on the lower back side of the head, same is evident from the postmortem report. The attack was made on the deceased and injured, when they were moving on motor cycle. As such, it cannot be said that merely because there is no injury on the centre of the head, the testimony of PWs 18 and 19 is to be discarded. The doctor who has conducted the postmortem, has also clearly stated in his deposition that all injuries which were noticed on the deceased were ante mortem. If the entire evidence of all the witnesses is examined with reference to medical and other evidence on record, it is clear that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. All the accused have committed the crime with a common intention. It is clear from the record that the role attributed to accused nos.1, 2 and 3 is fully supported by the injured witnesses as well as the deposition of investigation officer. Though the key witness, were crossexamined at length, nothing adverse was elicited. If the testimony of PW 20, is examined, same is fully supported by the evidence of PW 18, 19 and 21. It is clear from the evidence on record that their testimony is natural and trustworthy and so far as PWs18 and 19 are concerned it cannot be said that they are the chance witnesses. Even the injuries sustained by PWs18 and 19 are not self-inflicted as per the opinion of the medical expert. Further, it is also clear from the opinion of the doctor who was examined, that all the injuries were possible with muddammal knife and axe. It is further to be noticed that serological report from which the blood group was found on the cloths of the deceased and that of the accused nos.1 and 2 is the same. Even with regard to the presence of accused no.3, it is also clear considering the entire oral evidence on record that his presence on the spot is also proved beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 18][252-C-H; 253-A-B]
It cannot be said that there are major contradictions in the deposition of PWs 18 and 19. The contradictions which are sought to be projected are minor contradictions which cannot be the basis to discard their evidence. The prosecution has proved the case against all the appellant-accused beyond reasonable doubt. The omissions like not seizing the motorcycle and also not seizing the gold chain of one of the victims, by itself, is no ground to discredit the testimony of key witnesses who were examined on behalf of the prosecution, whose say is consistent, natural and trustworthy. [Para 19, 20][253-C-D; 256-B-C]
Mohar & Anr. v. State of U.P. (2002) 7 SCC 606; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Naresh & Ors. (2011) 4 SCC 324; Narayan Chetanram Chaudhary & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 457 – relied on.
Anand Ramachandra Chougule etc. v. Sidarai Laxman Chougala & Ors. (2019) 8 SCC 50: [2019] 11 SCR 14; Akula Veera Venkata Surya Prakash @ Babi v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh (2009) 15 SCC 246 : [ 2009] 7 SCR 543; Mohinder Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2004) 12 SCC
311 : [2011] 4 SCR 1176 – referred to
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.